msuic theory vs. music "grammar"?

[justharmony]

This has always been one of those things that seems to make sense to me as the following:  Learning how to describe what we hear, learning the patterns that are typically used  in what we hear, learning about the typical syntax in harmonies, melodies, voice-leading etc. all seems to me to be, essentially, music GRAMMAR. 
Music THEORY, to me anyway, is what comes after.  Music THEory is the discipline that asks not "what" chords, but rather, "WHY those chords?" It asks us not just how the music is constructed (grammar) but WHY it is constructed that way.  Why does a particular piece of music have an effect on us?

Music theory is, I suppose, more philosophical than strictly and exclusively analytical.  You get the idea, I suspect.
Thoughts?


JH

[richard_strauss]

I agree with you. Though music "grammar"  cannot always be the way a piece of music should be constructed, i.e normative; but it can also be the way a piece of music IS constructed, i.e. descriptive. The difference is that a descriptive point of view does not involve a judgement on what is being described. In a normative approach, however, we have to take an active role on our evaluation so that we are confronted with questions of the sort "Is this correct? If so, why?" that makes this sense of the word closer to what you described as music theory. Listen to the following nocturne, from a purely normative point of view we should consider one of the versions "wrong" (the right one being the closest to the composers original intention):

Another similarity to take into account is that grammar has different "modules" (as Noam Chomsky explains) and there are different levels of analysis to it (syntax, morphology, semantics, phonology, etc).

[pianoman53]

I have the opposite idea. Musical grammar, or musical analizys (not the same as theory) is, for me, not only explaining what happens, but why. Both are as equal.
Also, for me, it's something a philosophical discussion about music. Like in Mozart sonata A-major, first mov: Is the last 8th-note in every bar an up beat to the following bar, or the ending of the first?

Theory is, again for me, the way to make those discussion easier. If you don't know the theory, it might be very difficult to analyze a piece in a proper way, but more only on your feelings.

[justharmony]

Totally agree with you, RS, in that music "grammar" most definitely includes descriptive (I think that's it's strength and purpose - music "theory" or, what I call "grammar" gives us the baseline words and concepts that allow us to talk about the music.  It's not JUST about what's "normative", but that's a useful concept, because without it one might not appreciate the wonderful deviations from the norm that are all over the place in music.  And I do not think, nor did I mean to imply, that "normative" in some way equates with "correct" (see the previous statement).  That is one "theory", I suppose, but I don't think it to be a very effective or useful one (i.e., the music is beautiful because it is "correct")  I think that when we get into discussions of "correctness" in music we can get into very sketchy territory that CAN - not always - go too far into the realm of the purely abstract intellectual side of things at the possible expense of the art of music.  I can't say that happens as a rule, nor will I say that having intellectual, cerebral discussions about music is a bad thing by any means.  But are there pitfalls?  I'd say so.

Interesting choice of pieces, btw, for your example, RS - care to say more?  I love that little Nocturne, but have always felt it's kind of an outlyer in comparison with the other Nocturnes.  I, personally, theorize that Chopin never really "finished" it, so it makes for an interesting piece to discuss in relation to music theory/music grammar.  I'd love to hear more of your thoughts about it.  As to the "correctness" of one vs. the other... well... maybe I'll wait to hear more of your thoughts on it before I say anything more. 

Pianoman, you seem to be saying, on the surface, something similar to what I and RS are saying, but definitionally I think you and I differ.  To me, "why" doesn't end with whether Mozart's 8th note is an upbeat or an ending.  The question is a valid one, but to me that's still within the realm of music grammar.  We're still largely labeling, describing, though the room for debate brings it closer to what I'd call "theory". But I would go further with it and say that, at least for me, "theory" gets into something more like, "Why does it matter if it's an upbeat or an ending- i.e., how does one respond differently if it is considered/played as one vs. the other, and WHY do we respond that way? WHY did Mozart write it the way he did? How "effective" is it and what does that mean?"

I know there are some not-just black and white lines here, and lots of semantics... but that is what "theory" is to me.  H. Schenker embodies a true "theorist" in my mind - and if you read his introductions, especially, he waxes poetic about why Western music is so wonderful, why it works for us - and what the essential heart of it all is.  Gets into God, the universe, mankind's relationship to it all and how we express that, mirror that, in music.  THAT is some very cool THEORY. 

Maybe there are similar things in other fields too... like math.  I've heard of mathematicians saying things like all the "lower" math is not really what "true" math is about.  It's more like arithmetic that paves the way to the "real" stuff of math.  (Any mathematicians out there to keep  me honest (or correct me if need be?)

Just thoughts...

JH.